Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Article Tools

After spending much of the last two years researching the 2007 trial of Eric Frimpong for rape, journalist and author Joel Engel believes that the former UCSB soccer player was wrongly convicted. This article is the result of the 6,000 hours of unpaid research he and his uncle did for Frimpong’s appellate team, and represents solely his opinions on the matter. Frimpong’s case is currently under appeal, and a decision is expected soon.

I used to think that even bad cops lied only about the worst bad guys. I believed most prosecutors tried only defendants they considered guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And I assumed that highly paid defense attorneys, aware that someone’s freedom was at stake, carefully prepared their cases before walking into court.

Then I met Eric Frimpong.

Paul Wellman (file)

UCSB’s Eric Frimpong (center) in a 2005 NCAA match against SDSU

Santa Barbarans may remember Frimpong, the native of Ghana who was instrumental in the UCSB soccer team’s 2006 national championship. Soon after hoisting the trophy - and being drafted by the Kansas City Wizards of Major League Soccer - he was arrested for and subsequently convicted of raping a 19-year-old university freshman with a blood alcohol level determined to be between 0.26 and 0.33, not far from anesthesia level. I will continue the established journalistic nicety of referring to her as Jane Doe, though after 20 months investigating this case, I have become convinced that she helped send an innocent man to prison.

Eric is now beginning year three of his six-year sentence, confined at the California Correctional Institute in mountainous Tehachapi, a 1,650-acre facility west of Mojave from which there has been only one successful escape, decades ago. As a level-two prisoner, Eric has a fair amount of free movement, especially to play soccer on a dedicated field and socialize in the large green yard surrounded by buildings that, from the outside, aren’t dissimilar from a 1950s style suburban elementary school. But everywhere he looks, the razor wire, cameras, guards, electronic gates, manned towers, thick bars, and steel-reinforced doors in industrial beige walls with peeling paint remind him he’s living a nightmare against which his chosen defense as a believing Christian is a touching faith in what he calls “God’s plan.” Let’s hope he, or He, knows something.

Each of the dozen times I’ve visited him to further the investigative work in support of his appeal, he has seemed less ingenuous and more reserved. One Friday last year, when a guard showed up to end our meeting in what the prison sardonically refers to as “The Board Room,” I hugged Eric good-bye. It was an impulsive and stupid thing to do. The next morning he called (collect) to say that the guard had stripped him and performed a full body-cavity search, believing that I had secreted some contraband at the last moment - as if the prisoner and I had not been alone in a room, unguarded for the previous two hours.

Eric describes frequent scenes of violence and rage, but he doesn’t share the darkest details. This last August, after posing another two hours worth of questions, I asked how he thought prison had changed him. “It’s made me,” he said, pausing for a moment, “more mature.”

* * *

Eric was arrested February 17, 2007. He was said to have met the young woman at a party on Del Playa Drive in Isla Vista, and taken her first to his cliff-side house down the block for a game of beer pong, and then - in her version of events - to the beach below his house, where the rape was alleged to take place.

I first heard about the case a few days later. My daughter had gone to high school and was now attending college in Boston with a young woman whose boyfriend was Eric’s roommate and former teammate, Patrick Monahan. Coincidentally, Pat was in Boston that weekend, visiting his girlfriend. He got a call from his parents, the people Eric had notified after his arrest.

Loni and Paul Monahan, religiously Christian and politically conservative, live in northern San Diego County. Late in the summer of 2005, they helped Pat, then a freshman, move into UCSB’s Tropicana dorm where the other soccer team members were quartered. When there was some confusion with one of the foreign-born players, a junior who’d just reported and hadn’t yet been assigned a room, someone asked Pat whether he minded having this kid Eric Frimpong crash on his floor for a while.

“Who is he?” Loni asked.

In walked this surprisingly diminutive, charcoal-skinned young man with kind eyes and a perfect smile, all of his worldly possessions contained in a small backpack.

“He started talking,” Loni says, “and we pretty much had no idea what he was saying. He thought he was speaking English, but I think it was still Twi [his native language]. It didn’t matter. We fell in love with him.”

Loni and Paul soon became Eric’s de facto American parents, lacking only legal status. “He was like our third son,” Paul says.

On weekends, Eric often accompanied Pat on the four-hour drive south to the Monahans’ home. He was fascinated with Loni’s washing machine, and asked her to show him how it worked. “The kind of poverty he described boggled my mind,” she says. “I’ll never forget how he’d sleep in his clothes, on top of the covers, with the light on because he was afraid of the dark, and there was a Bible by his side.”

Paul Monahan says it’s no wonder that, when offered a chance for a degree at an American university and to play soccer on a bigger stage, he accepted the scholarship that came with a student visa, plane ticket, and instructions on what bus to board when he arrived at LAX.

Lori Monahan

Eric Frimpong during happier times, on vacation in the Bahamas with the Monahan family.

Everyone agrees that Eric impressed his coaches and made friends easily. A math and statistics major, he did well in school and his English improved, so in some ways his biggest adjustment was to Isla Vista’s Bacchanalian culture that turns Del Playa Drive into an orgiastic block party Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. An Isla Vista Parks and Recreation Department supervisor told me that it’s not unusual for drunken kids to be found lying in bushes and on park paths in the morning. Cleanup for his rec crews often includes used condoms and forgotten panties.

Before Eric began his second year at UCSB, a senior on target to graduate in June, he and Pat and several roommates had moved into a two-story cliff-side house on Del Playa just east of the El Embarcadero beach access. Its back patio, overlooking the Pacific, was dominated by an oversized, hand-painted beer pong table.

Eric’s three-week trial began in late November 2007. Deputy District Attorney Mary Barron called 32 witnesses. Defense attorney Robert Sanger called just one - though not Eric, who, until he heard Sanger say the defense rests, believed he would be telling his story on the witness stand. Judge Brian Hill presented the case to the jury on December 14, Eric’s twenty-second birthday. Deliberations began Monday the 17th. By late that afternoon, Eric had been convicted of raping Jane Doe exactly 10 months before.

* * *

Through the 10 months, I’d kept a semi-interested ear on the proceedings and at one point asked my daughter whether Eric might be guilty. No way, she said, quoting everyone who knew Eric, including UCSB soccer coach Tim Vom Steeg. He’d evidently claimed that if he listed all the players on his team in order of their capacity for rape, Eric would’ve placed 30th out of 30.

So when Eric was convicted, my first thought was to blame racism. This seemed like a good story: Santa Barbara, Mississippi, zip code 1955. I wanted to write it. But the only way to reach Eric, I’d been told, was through Loni Monahan.

When I called her, she was frantic - and, as she later confided, probably on the verge of a breakdown. Judge Hill had just denied attorney Sanger’s motion for new trial and sentenced Eric to six years. It was the Monahans who’d spent $60,000 on Sanger - best known for being on Michael Jackson’s molestation defense team - and they were out of pocket, directly and indirectly, at least a couple of hundred thousand dollars. They had been consumed physically, emotionally, and financially by Eric’s tribulations and trial, and were now struggling personally - with each other - as well. Her first question to me was whether I could donate money to the Eric Frimpong Freedom Fund, which she’d set up to help find and pay for an appellate attorney. I said no, but maybe what I wrote - if I wrote it - would inspire donations.

Loni believed that racism might have played a role but wasn’t the major reason for Eric’s conviction, and that piqued my interest. We met at the Santa Monica home of my uncle, Oscar Rothenberg, a 78-year-old uncommonly astute retired lawyer who’d volunteered some years back to investigate a death-row case for the state public defender’s office. Oscar, it should be noted, is a proponent of capital punishment. What he’s against is someone undeserving being executed. I suspected that he would bring a more jaundiced attitude to hearing Eric’s story than I would - that is, not be swayed by emotion. If, after listening, he decided that Eric was probably guilty, I’d have walked away from what I thought at the time was going to be merely a story.

Both Loni and Paul showed up. They’d carted boxes of documents, including transcripts of trial testimony, up from San Diego. We asked questions, and they answered. We took copious notes. The scheduled two hours became four became seven. It was a mini trial. My aunt, Beth, made us lunch and then a snack. By hour three, I began to believe that Eric might be innocent. By hour five, I could see the same on Oscar’s face. At hour seven, he called Ron Turner, an appellate attorney with whom he’d worked at the state PD’s office. Turner was now a sole practitioner in Sacramento, but he still sometimes took cases assigned by the state. Oscar spent half an hour convincing him to ask the state to assign him Eric, who as an indigent is entitled to a state-appointed attorney.

Turner made clear that he was working on two major death-penalty cases and had no time to do any of the investigation himself. Still on the phone, Oscar looked over at me and said, “What if you had two investigators feeding you information?”

Was he kidding? Oscar was often wracked with pain from a severe cervical spine problem. Now, not only had he volunteered himself to roll a boulder uphill, he’d included me, too. How could I say no? My life, I realized with a shudder, was about to change - how much, I couldn’t possibly have imagined. As with the Monahans, my involvement with Eric would hurt financially: Oscar and I were to be strictly unpaid volunteers. What consoled and excited me, besides trying to undo an apparent wrong, was the thought of working with him. Though he’d married Beth when I was 12, he was the closest relative I’d had to a father, and for decades we usually hadn’t gotten along. So this was an opportunity to establish the kind of relationship with him that I’d always wanted. Of course, the whole thing could’ve blown up - and often did.

On the condition that he’d have two investigators, Turner, with the Monahans’ and Eric’s approval, agreed to take the case. Ron would work on the so-called technical issues for the appeal; for instance, whether there’d been a Miranda violation. Oscar and I would be working only on the habeas corpus brief - trying to prove, in essence, that Eric was innocent.

Because we lacked the power of subpoena, we were armed only with common sense, critical-thinking faculties, and a storyteller’s sense of what’s plausible and what’s not. Reading the trial transcripts over and over, Oscar and I spoke frequently, argued often, and then sent our aggregated findings to Turner. For a long time we maintained our skepticism, agreeing only that, even if Eric were guilty, he had not received a fair trial.

Once we began doing field work, it seemed clear that Eric could not logically have been the perpetrator of any violence that might’ve been committed against Doe, and we quickly formed an alternative and far more reasonable theory of what had happened. That led to contact with experts in geology, odontology, audio technology, and real estate, as well as frat boys, sociologists, scientists, researchers, and possible witnesses - including a young man who saw Eric that night at a time the prosecution contended he was raping Jane Doe.

We took possession of the files from defense attorney Sanger’s office and were disappointed. Though they included the prosecution’s work product turned over under the rules of discovery, much of what we assumed would be there was not. No phone records and text messages of Jane Doe’s boyfriend. No contact info and personal statement of Doe’s roommate. No statements of those who had partied with her that night. No requests for background on the cops themselves. Et cetera. Neither prosecutor Barron nor Sanger had subpoenaed certain information that, it seemed to us, would have been useful, if not necessary, to ensure a just trial.

What makes Eric Frimpong’s wrongful conviction so important and compelling is the ease with which the Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney, and defense acted both wittingly and unwittingly to deprive an innocent of his liberty. If the appeal fails, when Eric is released from prison after serving his time he will be deported back to Ghana and spend the rest of his life as a convicted sex offender, unable to visit the vast majority of countries for either work or pleasure. In other words, a lifetime sentence will have been imposed for a crime he didn’t commit.

More like this story

Joel Engel is the bestselling author of more than a dozen books. As a journalist, he has written on a wide variety of subjects for many national publications, and contributed frequently to the New York Times. You can contact him at joelengel@yahoo.com.

I really feel sorry for this guy....he was totally railroaded by a prejudicial system headed by Politically motivated Prosecutors that only care about their personal careers and not who they persecute.

This is a great story - Thanks Indy for helping to get the truth out. I have read all of the other atricles that you have published and the subsequent comments. Maybe this "truth" will finally help the Community understand what really happend in this case. The unchecked power of the police, DA, and the Judge can, and has, convicted an innocent man. May Eric's appeal (heard on December 10th) be successful and this young man be released from prison for the New Year.Eric, God has a plan for your life. Stay faithful.

Perhaps a lawsuit against the Santa Barbara judicial system could speed up the appeal. When a judicial system convicts someone without proper evidence the judge and court are guilty of incompetence.

Judge Brian Hill was a prosecutor for 18 years before becoming a judge. He thinks like a prosecutor. For him to have let this case develop the way it did was biased towards the prosecution. Courtrooms like the one that convicted Frimpong are a danger to public safety.

The evidence that showed Jane Doe's drunk boyfriend Benjamin Randall as the victim was ignored.It's scary that we have such an incompetent courtroom here in what's supposed to be a safe city.

OH INDY---must we---and the victim and those who know what happened--listen to this bs even after the jury has spoken? The indulgence and anti-victim rhetoric was bad enough before and during the trial but really---how many words will this paper devote to this? at least put it on the opinion page.

So, YOU know what happened? Did you read this whole story? It sure answers the doubters and certainly most questions that I read in the comments from all of the Indy articles. You seem to not want anyone to write anything that might point out the true facts about this case - especially facts that point to police or prosecutor misconduct. And there seems to be many of those facts supported by experts and witness declarations.

You posted "this" in January during the request for new trial: "But besides all that obvious vendetta-seeking by the author, the Indie could have easily checked the statements she claims to be facts of the Frimpong trial but which are far far from fact and which only serve to further victimize the victim. For that alone, the Indie should be ashamed."

This is a story by a reporter/writer (with no vendetta as you previously stated) that spent significant time investigating this horrible story and wants the truth to be known. And, I understand that there is an Appeal that is being considered right now. The conviction could be overturned.

Keep an open mind - you may be dead wrong. It appears that Santa Barbara could have put an innocent man in prison for the past two years for something he did not do. That is the horrible truth in all this.

sbsleuth99 - the victim is not always who we assume it to be, or the person a jury determines it to be. The number of convictions overturned by DNA evidence is proof of this. The evidence brought forth in the article seems worthy of allowing Frimpong the opportunity of a new trial. If he is innocent, then a real predator is roaming free to attack again. If on retrial he is found innocent or guilty the prosecutors in his original trial will be justly damned or praised for their work. (Now we understand why the prosecutor would be uncooperative in support of further investigation.) A retrial will support the cause of true justice, whether he is determined innocent or guilty.

I have never been as drunk as Jane Doe was on that night. I lived in IV and have blacked out from binge drinking before, but have never been that drunk. I am telling you right now there is no possible way that Jane Doe remembers anything from that night. There is no physical evidence that Eric did it.

Although I have not yet read all the chapters above, one thing that is clear is that the jury did NOT hear the whole story --- why not? why such inadequate defense? Thank you for following up on this. I don't know any of the parties but it seemed to me at the time, on reading the news stories, that the young man was getting railroaded. What a tragedy, all around, is this tale.

The City of Santa Barbara needs to investigate the charges of police misconduct outlined in this well researched article. I will be attending the Free Eric Frimpong Rally tomorrow at 1 PM at De La Guerra Plaza.

Here's a nice little story of a man who spent 35 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit. Let's not forget the McMartin preschool nightmare either. Funny how people end up in jail from mere accusations and heresay when it comes to sex crimes.

Thank you for your diligence Mr. Engel. If God exists, you are first in line for an angelic promotion.

When I first heard of this case I was a local law student and worked within the prosecution branch of the court system in close proximity to Judge Hill and all other participants. The primary purpose of the system is to perpetuate the legal fiction that justice is equitably dispensed and all is still well in Gotham.

The sanctimonious hypocrisy and bs which attends most legal proceedings in SB and elsewhere is legendary. From just a cursory reading of the news articles written while the case was initially being tried, it was readily apparent that Eric was being hung out like a sacrificial lamb.

Eric's case is very similar to another young man who attended SBCC and was convicted of a similar crime. When the alleged rape occurred, those close to that case stated that the motivation of the alleged victim in that case was purely pecuniary in nature. She has subsequently sued the State and various parties for a substantial sum of money.

I am a father to one daughter who attends a UC. I certainly do not have an affinity for rapists. However, I also harbor an intense disdain for injustice, wherever it rears its hideous head.

I'm amazed at the dogged detective work done by Engel and Rothenberg in determining that Jane Doe may actually not have been "attacked" on the beach, but rather at Camino Pescadero Park. Matching the mystery butt cheek mark to the Rainbird sprinkler was brilliant!

There were so many issues raised ... if half the conclusions that Engel and Rothenberg have come up with are validated, this case is going to reflect very poorly on the Sheriff's & DA's offices and their staff who were in charge of investigating and prosecuting the case. As portrayed, detective Kies seems at best unprofessional and unobjective, at worst pretty shady. Certainly none of my friends in the SBPD have ever been arrested for attacking another officer or been convicted of drug use!!!.

And one has to wonder, is the DA's refusal to provide a dirt sample for testing the beginning of a stonewalling campaign?

Finally, what about the defense provided to Frimpong? As portrayed, it seems weak and defective.

Members of the public often never really know if justice is being served. In this case, there seems to be cause for doubt.

I think that we ordinary folk often assume that criminal trials are perfect. All the evidence is correct. All testimony is accurate and truthful. All facts that should be presented are brought to light. Any stretching of the truth or inappropriate inferences made by prosecution or defense teams are appropriately neutralized by the other side. Instructions and orders given by the judge are appropriate. Jurors are rational and will make the right decision.

But even if the jury is a good one and does what they are instructed to do, it seems (and Engel's article suggests) that lots of "imperfect" things can happen before deliberation which can produce an outcome that is ultimately incorrect.

If this were not so, there would be no need for organizations like The Innocence Project:

A lot of worrisome issues that might exonerate Frimpong are raised in these articles. I think the bite evidence is unconvincing.

However, as the good Kratatoa points out on one of the chapter comment pages, there is not a good discussion of how the victim's DNA came to be on Frimpong's genitals, which is the most damning evidence against Frimpong.

Seems hard to believe that the victim walked the beach from the El Embarcadero access all the way to Pescadero access on a moonless night with a + tide. Media didn't cover that unlikely point very well during the trial.

SBsleuth99 - It is quite remarkable that of all the comments, yours is the only one that defends the conviction. This new article carefully examines all of the evidence that was and was not brought to the trial for the jury to deliberate. If the ADA had not had a preconceived agenda and the defense attorney did only half of what he was paid to do (put on a defense) the jury very likely would have come to a different conclusion. How can a good decision be based on faulty and incomplete evidence?

Engel does discuss this issue in Chapter 9. He implies the DNA didn't necessarily come from Doe's vagina and that the DNA could have gotten there through means other than sexual contact (e.g. hands to genitals while going to the bathroom). But apparently, Frimpong's lawyer put up a weak defense on this issue. In addition, Engel says none of Frimpong's DNA was found on Doe or her clothing, only DNA from that other guy, Benjamin Randall.

At least that's my read. I wonder what Robert Sanger has to say about all this?

Engel's discussion in Chapter 9 is vague. He doesn't state clearly `The DNA from Doe found on Frimpong's genitals did not come from Doe's vagina'. One can read Engel's discussion as: some portion of the DNA from Doe found somewhere on Frimpong's body was not from Doe's vagina.

I don't know what the truth here is. But it does bug me that Engel kind of muffed his discussion of the single strongest bit of evidence against Frimpong.

It is my understanding from research today that NONE of the few (two or three) neucluated cells (from the girl) found on Frimpong were "vaginal" - they ALL tested negative. That is a fact. The DA tried to explain this away as the test is not always accurate. I bet they would not have attempted to discount this test if they had come back positive for "vaginal" cells.

Do you find any of what was uncovered in this investigation to be credible? Should law Enforcement and the DA done anything different?

We also need to remember, this story does not include all of evidence that will come out in a new trial. I don't think that his defense team wants to give the DA a free look at all of the evidence. Plus, the next legal step would disclose much more.

If the appeal is won, a new trial ordered, then ALL of the facts will come out.

My opinion of this story is that it points to SO many errors that were cause to put an innocent man in prison in the prime of his life. And the person that did this to the girl is walking the streets.

If Frimpong had had a defense team as skilled as, say that O.J. Simpson's "dream team", he would have had a "Not Guilty" verdict... and the evidence against O.J. Simpson was far more convincing that that against Frimpong. Yet again, we have a glaring example of how the standard of your defense is only as good as what you can afford; in other words, a classic case of "you get what you pay for".

It's a biased, duplicitous world, and the justice system has less to do with doling out "justice for all"; it's more a mechanism for serving/coddling the wealthy and well-connected.

There is also the constant expectation from investors in the privately run prison-industrial complex for maximized profits, furnished by the endless conveyor belt full of the poor, disproportionately those with black or brown skin.

That the girl's DNA was found on Frimpong's genitals was the strongest bit of evidence against Frimpong. That was the core of the case; all sorts of chaos swirls around just about every case involving alcohol-impaired eyewitnesses. There will always be inconsistencies and odd unresolved issues in such a case.

But her DNA on his genitals... now that strikes at the center of the case, and not an alcohol-addled memory. If her DNA was in such small quantity to be consistent with a rape, or was provably not from her vagina, that is super important. But Engels doesn't really make those points as forcibly as he needs to.

How did this conviction happen? For that matter, why was this kid even arrested? Why did the police NOT investigate the boyfriend - he may have had her DNA, cuts and bruises all over him (as the girl testified she hit her attacker and hurt herself). But by coming up 10 days later to be a "witness", (after potential cuts healed) is REALLY telling.

As "Citti" states above, there is NO way that the JURY heard (or knew) the whole story. BUT, the Judge, the DA and certainly Law Enforcement did. Why did they let this go to trial?

I reflect on the statement that has bugged me since I read it at the end of this trial by judge Hill:

""...in his 27 years as a practicing attorney and as a judge, he's not seen more "incriminating, credible and powerful evidence" in a case where the defendant has not admitted guilt...."

Really Judge Hill . . . did you know ALL of this information?

The Jury NEVER heard the "interviews", they just heard what the DA and Law Enforcement wanted them to hear. And an academy award winning performance I might add based on the facts in this story. This is scary - this could happen to anyone of us.

Judge Hill also said . . . "...it "would've been helpful for this courtroom to have been filled," to see the ins and outs of the trial, including the testimony of the victim, her demeanor and speech pattern when she testified and the testimony of several people who saw her within minutes of being assaulted"

The JURY should have heard what the girl said to police andd DA in the hours, days, or weeks after Mr Frimpong was arrested. If the COMMUNITY heard the "interviews", the DA and Police coaching and multiple story embellishments by the girl, they would have marched on the Court in mass and demanded a new trial. Now that we KNOW it, we need to demand action by our DA. It is an election year!

Thank you Mr. Engel for taking the time to investigate and find the truth. I would hope that Judge Hill would take back his PUBLIC comments about an innocent man's "guilt". Shame on you, the DA and most importantly the crooked Sheriff's that participated in this railroad. How can any of you sleep at night.

I am angry that tax dollars are funding a system that would allow this to happen. I am angry that this young man has spent two years of his life in Prison for something he did not do.

Judge Hill - order a NEW TRIAL immediately in light of this new evidence. Or at least order an evidence hearing and open up that "jacket" (with a rep from the DA and Defense) and test it to see if it's "sand" from the beach - or "dirt" from that park. If the evidence does not confirm the girls "beach" story - a NEW TRIAL is in order. If this girl lied, it will come out in a NEW TRIAL. This is the right and fair thing to do.

Thanks Kratatoa for making the "same" point for the fifth time. Any other insights?

The Author covered this in the story and has posted twice in the last section. Here are his words to your point:

"A couple of Jane Doe's cells of DNA were found on Eric's genitals. As noted, I thought that was plainly obvious from the context, and apparently the majority of readers saw it that way, too.

Again, these were non vaginal cells. There was also a cell, non vaginal, on one of Eric's fingertips.

Eric did not shower or otherwise wash that morning. This too, I thought, was handled in the section about Sgt. Ruth's getting Eric to grant them permission to swab him genitally instead of waiting a day or so for a court order.

Here's a recap: None of Eric's DNA found on Jane Doe. "A few cells" of Doe's non-vaginal DNA found on Eric's genitals and/or fingertip. Benjamin Randall's DNA found in Doe's panties."

This point was covered, it was previously known and of the author states that this DNA point was the key to the Prosecutions case. What this article brings to light very well is ALL of the other evidence that did not come out in the trial. HOW did that non-vaginal DNA get there? Not from penetration! How do you convict for rape without penetration? And with someone elses DNA was in her panties that night. That should be the fact that SPEAK volumes to you and everyone else.

Remember, Mr. Frimpong was with the girl that night, and her EX testified that he saw them arm in arm hugging and was a bit upset. Frimpong also stated he did not have SEX with the girl to detectives and he volunteered his clothes and his DNA to detectives to clear himself. Nothing was found on his clothes/underwear. Would a guilty man do that without lawyering up?

What is right here is a new trial. Please add up all the evidence in this story and hopefully you can at least agree that this conviction does not smell right.

I would like to hear comments from the candidates for DA, Ms. Dudley and Mr. Lynn. I wonder if either of them has reviewed the case and is satisfied with the job by the District Attorney's office? I think the upcoming election provides an opportunity to demand answers from the people who would like to be in charge of the District Attorney's Office. I suggest the candidates become familiar with this case because I intend to ask some questions at public campaign events.

"I think the upcoming election provides an opportunity to demand answers from the people who would like to be in charge of the District Attorney's Office"--Zevonfan

Good point. I'd guess it would be quite a balancing act for either candidate to come out and say anything "controversial". That might lead to some burning of bridges with people within the DA's and Sheriff's offices who for whatever reason don't want to see the case re-tried. Then again, these types of quandaries are often good tests of leadership and character.

I would not want to touch this with a ten foot pole. Judicial misconduct? Consensual sex by an unconscious young girl? A big mistake by a young man? Did he go too far? Did she go too far? Does the criminal justice system always endeavor to find the truth? What a mess!

A few non vaginal cells were found. It could be as simple as shaking the "vicim's" hand and later going to the bathroom. If there was sex there would have been thousands of cells. This was covered in the story. Reading is fundamental Kratatoa.

Here Kratatoa is the quote from the story that you missed."The prosecutor's most compelling evidence against Eric were, in the words of the report by senior criminalist Dianne Burns, "a few cells" of Doe's DNA found on Eric, including one on his fingertip. This would have been overcome by Eric's taking the stand to explain in detail - and without being interrupted - the story he tried to tell Kies and did tell Detectives Scherbarth and Ruth. Not putting a defendant on the stand is a perfectly acceptable defense tactic, and some lawyers never put their clients on. But in the post O.J. Simpson world, juries need an explanation for DNA evidence, and Sanger did not offer this jury a qualified expert to hammer home the findings that Doe's DNA had not come from her vagina; that if Eric had penetrated Doe, this would have left a far greater amount of DNA on him, and at least some of his in or on her; and that DNA can be transferred by something as innocent as wiping one's nose on a 44-degree winter night, sharing a cup of beer, and holding hands."

This story is so sad . . . and opens up so much unknown information to the jury and public. We should all hope and pray that the "appeal" argument was strong enough to have have this conviction set aside or overturned. A new trial is RIGHT!

Unfortunatley the legal systm is a major uphill climb once conviction. And this young man shoudl not have been convicted.

Can Judge Hill order a new trial or an evidence hearing to evaluate if Mr. Frimpong was unjustly convicted? Of course, then you get into all of HIS prejudicual comments that he made about "never seen a case with more evidence of guilt" . . .

While we smug Santa Barbarans think we can do what we choose, there is national and international attention being paid to this story, and opinions being formed about our would-be sophisticated and liberal city that suggest that the American Riviera is more creekside trailer park compound.

Intheknow, please go back to your southern redneck white bred provence where your racist relatives live. Oh and btw, white people can be wrongly convicted, too, and sent to prison when they're innocent. Karma's a real sneaky bugger my dear. ANY competent person would agree that a person who receives an unfair trial deserves justice. Your argument that we should just throw away the key on this kid is disturbing. Which kinda means you're disturbing. Are you the boyfriend perhaps??? What if you were the one in this mess and were wrongly convicted, spending your days wasting away in jail?

"And then you really might know what it's like, to have to lose."Great song.

I've met Judge Hill, and he's a good man and a good judge. One, however, who possibly or even likely made a big mistake. IMO, in light of this fantastic investigative work, Frimpong deserves a new trial. Period. Just my opinion, but I hope he gets one.

For the record Intheknow, I'm white. I've got relatives like you, too, but I choose not to behave or think like them.

P.S. Rape is a crime that has so much emotional cultural baggage attached to it that justice is often not served either for defendant nor plaintiff.

Think about it: How many people have gone to jail for this who were innocent? (I say "people" because two of the defendants in the McMartin preschool nightmare were women) and how many women who were actually raped were afraid to come forth because they knew some sleazy defense attorney would in effect put them on trial by dragging out their sexual habits. (Alleged or otherwise)

We need to grow up as a society and get beyond all the polemics involved in this issue.

i'm curious about what has happened to this "woman" jane doe? i hope her parents and older sister have given her the help she obviously needs. can the monahans sue the "attorney" to get their money back? i do sincerely hope that justice is served here...but I am curious though about the girl who FB'd that she "hated eric frimpong" I wonder what that was truly all about...

The weekend of deliberations, Jane Doe was spotted at a party "drinking" and talking to a black guy. We took pictures!!! In July after the pre-trial but before the trial, she moved to an apartment almost across the street from Frimpong's old house. Boy, she must have been "really traumatized" to live so close to where the "incident" took place! After the incident but before trial that September she and her friends posted a group invite to an ecstasy party on Facebook. This is what Jane Doe is doing after the "incident".

This is a common tactic, blame everyone else. The author starts out by saying he assumed it was a racist arrest (HE EVEN ADMITS IT!!) So who here came in with an agenda? The author.

Then in pure defense style tactic he blames EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE else. Look at his entire article, he blames the VICTIM, he blames the COPS, he blames the PROSECUTOR, he blames the DEFENSE ATTORNEY, and he blames the JUDGE. I'm surprised he didn't blame the court reporter, the bailiff, the reporters, and the lady who watched the trial on the third day.

Our legal system is set up to let 100 guilty people free instead of convicting 1 innocent person. Our you people aware that if the prosecutor discovers evidence that may, on the face of it, cast some doubt on the defendants' guilt that they are mandated by law to disclose that to the defense attorney? No matter how inconsequential that evidence may be.

But what if the defense attorney finds the proverbially "smoking gun"? Nope he can pretend it never existed. What if the defense uncovers evidence and it comes into the possession that shows the defendants' absolute guilt? Nope, don't have to disclose it, because the burden of proof is on the people to prove guilt. And if the defendant admits to the defense attorney that he did the crime that he is accused of? Nope, they don't have to say a word, but the caveat to this is that they most of the time will not put the defendant on the stand to testify. The defense attorney cannot lead that person to lie in testimony if they know that questions that they are answering are lies. Hence the person does not testify (a right they are afforded) . This begs the question in this case why Frimpong did not testify.

Sanger is widely regarded as one of the top defense attorney's in the area. He got Michael Jackson off of a guilty charge, To accuse him of mishandling the case is asinine. I like how the author writes in the "what if?" form and quarterbacks how he thinks the defense should have been played. But I guess he can have that convenience with "6000 hours" of time to think about "what should have been done" or how he could have gotten a guilty man off.

And if you don't like what I say then fine, combat my theories and principles. Your blanket statements just saying "I'm wrong" is really just a waste of time.

I think it's beyond rational thought that the police, D.A. and Judge stood behind Jane Doe's account of the rape with her BAC. If she had been a defendent in a DUI case, those very same people that believe her story would be attacking her memory if she had the same BAC and was accused of drunk driving.

I don't think that Mr. Engel is blaming anyone. I beleive that he was being honest and upfront with his first impression. That shows journalistic integrity. He just pointed out facts uncovered - as he wanted to determine Frimpong's innocence as he stated.

The evidence of the girls not knowing what happened is crystal clear in the interview tapes. Same with DA and Law Enforcement. It's not blame, its just evidence.

I also beleive the author clearly states that Frimpong believed he was going to testify and tell his story (and he should have) right up until, to his surpirse, the attorney rested. The supporters of Frimpong that filled the courtroom also were surprised by this decision to rest without putting on a defense.

The facts identified here (not happening on beach, no sand ever on girl, dirt on coat, sprinkler mark on butt, how the girl got to where she was first seen, BF DNA in panties, BF dental . . . ) open up TOO many questions that need answers. Law Enforcement and the DA hid things (including evidence uncovered in interview tapes) and ignored the very real red flags uncovered in these interviews that cast doubt. They did not perform an investigation - they built a case and invented a story. It is very obvious that the girl did not know what happened and she (and her friends that testified) was coached.

Unfortunately for Eric Frimpong, it appears that the Defense attorney did not perform an investigation either. While I am sure that the Attorney beleived in his legal mind that his cross examination pointed to reasonable doubt (and thus his rationale for resting) jurys are unpredictable and only hear what they want to hear. Jury's do not always associate facts or evidence the way an attorneys think they should. Yes, Mr. Sanger is a big name attorney, but DID he do the right thing here? I say NO.

You take time to mention the DA's responsibility - and I agree with your definition and statement here. Except, the DA did not follow these rules. The DA was locked on Frimpong.

The reason that I have called for a New Trial is that its the only way to clear this matter up. Do we want an innocent man to be in trial on our watch?

I do not think that the jury ever thought about race - I believe they made a decision solely on the facts presented to them. The issue for me is that they did not have ALL the facts and things were hidden and misrepresented. And the defense attorney must have misread their understanding of this complex case. No one saw this happened - but the evidence here sure points to something different happening that was the girl testified to.

A new trial does sound warranted. Leaving that aside, what bothers me as an extremely liberal progressive is how race can sometimes play a role in who us "liberals" defend. For example, if Frimpong were a slack-jawed bible-thumper from the South, would this hick gain the same fervent defense as we see here? Furthermore, very often the wrong "battles" are chosen because of race or the "street cred" of the defendant. Three very prominent cases come to mind: Ruben "Hurricane" Carter, an accused/convicted triple-murderer (almost certainly guilty) who once was paid to speak at Campbell hall by the UCSB Arts & Lectures Dept.; accused/convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, a former Pennsylvania journalist; and Leonard Peltier, convicted of shooting two FBI agents and an activist and member of the American Indian Movement. Each of these cases seem shaky from a factual standpoint, yet they have garnered enormous amounts of attention from the progressive movement, despite the shortcomings. Unfortunately, a result of the this disproportionate support for these defendants is that it makes the left an easy target for the other side. . .

I have read and reread the articles and all the comments twice. And I spent a long time reading the link about Gary Dotson which Bill Clausen mentioned in his Jan. 4 post.

Gary Dotson spent TWELVE years incarcerated for a rape that never happened. I urge all to read this. Right to the end even though it is lengthy. A fabricated story!! But the supposed victim did come forth to explain,many years later, why she made up her story. She had read the plot in a novel! And if she did turn up pregnant from having sex with her boyfriend the night before, she had a poor me rape cover story to tell her parents.

Jane Doe is another situation as she was so drunk that she only remembers bits and pieces in disjointed segments. She did some fabrication to protect herself from punishment for violation of her last juvenile drinking episode and arrest.

Given that it was concluded the few cells of DNA on Frimpong (after trying everything to make it otherwise so by LE and DA) to be non-vaginal DNA and the ex-boyfriends seaman DNA was in her panties that night, how can you or anyone else say that a rape even took place - never mind that it was Eric Frimpong? Just because the girl says so? Rape require penetration . . . there is no proof of that.

Also, as others have pointed out here, with all of the other NEW evidence about the Doe's story changing so many times, the no sand seen by first witness (with LE lying in report), Doe's coat coverned in dirt - not sand, her being so far away from where she said the incident took place without being seen, how could the DA and Law Enforcement beleive anything that was said.

With the new evidence, Mr. Frimpong should get a new trial. As taxpayers and voters, we should demand it. This whole thing just stinks bad to me.

But no-one has reviewed what kind of DNA situation you'd expect from a rape, based on actual surveys of real rape cases. I can't dead reckon whether the cells found on Frimpong were a small number compared to expectation or typical. Ditto the panties, given earlier sexual contact with the boyfriend.

Finally, I've wondered what DNA was found on Doe's body itself.

Again, I'm pretty sure any sexual contact with a drunken person is rape. Drunk people cannot legally consent. Not that I think that is practical, but I think it is the law.

You don't even have to look at the lack of evidence or clear judicial incompetence in this trial, to see that Eric Frimpong did not receive a fair trial. You simply have to look at the jury pool; all jurors were white, adding a racial factor. As well, the jury pool consisted of 9 women and 3 men, and women are clearly more likely to convict someone of a rape charge. In addition, the Judge was an IDIOT! He said that in 27 years he had never seen a rape case with more evidence, even though there was clearly a lack there of. Not only was the Judge incompetent, but also Frimpong's attorney, given he presented next to no defense when he had many options such as a secondary dentist's analysis of the teeth marks, or character witnesses or any number of possible alternatives.If any believes that Eric Frimpong is guilty, beyond the shadow of a doubt, please voice your opinion now.